Bhattarai v. Flagship S B New York LLC
- James Cott
- 1:21-cv-01148
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bhattarai v. Flagship, Judge Cott directed the parties to seek approval of their settlement agreement after reaching a settlement in principle.
The parties to Bhattarai v. Flagship S B New York LLC, who were required to submit a joint settlement-approval motion and fully executed agreement by February 14, 2022.
What happened
In Bhattarai v. Flagship S B New York LLC, the parties attended a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. They also agreed to consent to Judge James L. Cott’s authority so he could review the agreement.
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully signed settlement agreement by February 14, 2022. The motion had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and complied with the Court of Appeals’ requirements for reviewing certain employment settlements.
Judge Cott ordered the parties to make that filing, but the order did not approve the settlement itself. The order also referred the parties to prior decisions for guidance about acceptable settlement terms.
The detailed version
- Bhattarai v. Flagship S B New York LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01148
- James Cott
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
The parties appeared before Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference and reached a settlement in principle. They agreed to consent to his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) so that he could review the settlement agreement, based on his familiarity with its terms. They planned to submit the consent form as soon as practicable.
Court’s Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully executed settlement agreement no later than February 14, 2022. The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and otherwise complied with the standards identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
The court also directed the parties to several earlier decisions for guidance concerning settlement provisions, including restrictions on publicizing a settlement, reemployment provisions, communications with the media, the scope of releases, truthfulness exceptions to mutual non-disparagement provisions, confidentiality provisions, and mutual general releases. The court identified several recently approved settlement papers as examples.
Disposition
Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit the requested materials for court approval. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement or describe the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.